First post here,plaayle directed me here a few days back. I am from India and am interested in Indian native fish, primarily catfish,loaches and the large silver barbs (Andy Rushworth would be so proud of me for saying that ).

I spent a couple of years in the north Indian state of Uttarakhand and collected quite a few loaches most of which could not be ID’ed down to species level. Thought you guys might like to take a look at them. I am no photography whiz and being in the field and trying to take photos of the fish at the same time certainly didn’t help as will be evident with the pictures below.

To start with, Schistura obliquofascia. These were among the largest Schistura I have ever collected (that photo tank is 4 inches in length).

Yup, that is indeed a barrage situated at the base of the Kumaoun Himalayas in Kathgodam. Collecting C.chagunio in winter was quite an experience as the most cracking specimens usually turned up. Imagine a 6 inch Chagunius with a purple snout covered in tubercles!

I had gone to Himachal Pradesh last year to try and collect Schistura rupecola. While I did collect a species of Schistura fairly close to the type locality, I am not completely sure this is the real thing.

The colours have actually faded quite a bit, the fins were stunningly red when collected (especially on the larger specimens).

@shovelnose said:
Yup, that is indeed a barrage situated at the base of the Kumaoun Himalayas in Kathgodam.

Are fishes able to pass these Shovelnose?

Collecting C.chagunio in winter was quite an experience as the most cracking specimens usually turned up. Imagine a 6 inch Chagunius with a purple snout covered in tubercles!

Sounds wonderful!!

I had gone to Himachal Pradesh last year to try and collect Schistura rupecola. While I did collect a species of Schistura fairly close to the type locality, I am not completely sure this is the real thing.

The current valid name should be S. rupecula, but I think that your fish might be something else. McClelland clearly depicts the species with quite regular, solid bars on the flanks and describes its colour pattern as “about fourteen broad bars on either side, and three across the caudal and dorsal”.

Below are the drawing from McClelland’s description, plus an image of S. rupecula from the Kosi system in Nepal published in Kottelat (2012). Much further away from the type locality but the specimen matches the original description quite closely. See what you think.

Yup, species collected from this river (Gola River) included Garra spp., Schistura obliquofascia, Glyptothorax sp. Tor chelynoides, Tor cf. tor, Schizothorax cf. kumaonensis, Barilius cf. bendelesis, and a few more unidentified loaches and Barilius. The only notable difference was that larger specimens of Glyptothorax were found above the barrage while smaller ones were below and vice versa for Tor.

“Matt said:

The current valid name should be S. rupecula, but I think that your fish might be something else. McClelland clearly depicts the species with quite regular, solid bars on the flanks and describes its colour pattern as “about fourteen broad bars on either side, and three across the caudal and dorsal”.

Below are the drawing from McClelland’s description, plus an image of S. rupecula from the Kosi system in Nepal published in Kottelat (2012). Much further away from the type locality but the specimen matches the original description quite closely. See what you think.

Schistura obliquofascia was also described with around 14 bars and is much closer to the type locality. See what you think. My opinion (which doesn’t mean squat of course) is that specimens from the type locality are best suited to clear any confusion about that particular species.

Coming back to the Schistura at hand, there is a good possibility that it could be S.montana (type locality is Shimla again) but I am unable to trace the OD on my laptop. Do you have it Matt???

Species, S. montana, J. M. PI. LV. f. 1.
Depth of the body to its length as about one to eight, six cirri and a single suborbitar spine under each eye, a black streak at the base of the caudal, and about twelve broad streaks crossing the body ; with one row of black dots crossing the dorsal rays, and a faint row crossing those of the caudal. Pectorals and ventrals long and lanceolate. The fin rays are D. 8 : P. 10 : V. 8 : A. 6 : C. 18. Habitat, mountain streams at Simla*. Length two and half inches.

Colour: 10-12 black vertical bands, broader than interspaces,encircling body; bands anterior to dorsal fin break up into numerous narrow bands in bigger specimens. Caudal with a black band at its base and a bar across each lobe. Dorsal with a black base and a black blotch at base of its first few rays; a dark bar across its centre.

Size: Largest specimen examined 59 mm SL.

and for S. rupecula, J. M. PI. LV. f. 3, a. b.

About fourteen broad bars on either side, and three across the caudal and dorsal ; without suborbitar spines, six cirri, four in front, and one at each corner of the mouth. The third ray from the upper and lower margins of the caudal a little longer than the outer ones. Lower surface of the body and head nearly flat, pectorals and ventrals lanceolate.

Now the next one should be a real puzzler. This was the only specimen I came across in my entire stay in that region and that too just after the monsoons. There were severe floods in the region and I guess this specimen was washed down from somewhere. From the Ganges Basin in Uttar Pradesh,

Is this Pangio pangia??? This is stress colouration, it was blood red when collected and yes, I know the photography is remarkably lousy.

Shovelnose said Schistura obliquofascia was also described with around 14 bars and is much closer to the type locality. See what you think. My opinion (which doesn’t mean squat of course) is that specimens from the type locality are best suited to clear any confusion about that particular species.

Agree totally, which is why I stopped short of making any statement. Great post by Joyban!

Very cute Pangio – is it a first record for the genus in this part of the Ganges basin?

“Only around one third of the species described by Hamilton (1822) were illustrated by drawings accompanying the text and an illustration of Cobitis pangia was not included . The history of Hamilton’s illustrations has been summarized by Hora (1929), who also noted that Hamilton’s original illustration of C.pangia was subsequently published by M.Clelland (1839) and is reproduced here as Figure 6. Due to the lack of Indian specimens we cannot comment on any differences between our Myanmar material of P. pangia and topotypic or other Indian material. There is considerable variation in vertebral counts among our samples from Myanmar, but we feel that, except for the Indawgyi area, samples are too small , and many of them too poorly preserved for a more detailed analysis of their taxonomic status.”

So clearly the different species of Pangio refereed in the older works by Hamilton etc might have included the other Myanmar species which were initially all grouped under as Cobitis pangia, Hamilton which is now valid as Pangio pangia (Hamilton 1822).

The speciese from Myanmar as described in the paper are as : Pangio elongata, Pangio fusca, Pangio lumbriciformis , Pangio pangia, Pangio signicauda

In there Remarks Britz & Maclaine 2007 have stated “ BMNH 1932.4.22.1 from the ‘Sevoke stream, Darjeeling’ came to the BMNH via the Indian Museum and is most likely from the collection that Hora (1930) reported on. He found Pangio with and without pelvics among his samples from the same locality. The 18 pelvic-less specimens were caught .. from debris at the bottom of pools in the course of the stream”, but the two having pelvic fins were ·’obtained from among pebbles and shingle in a swift current .. (Hora,1930: 435). Hora also noted additional constant morphological differences between his two forms, but concluded that rather than an aberration, as he claimed previously (Hora, 1921), they were just a ‘habitat variety” of Pangio pangia. The plain brown colouration and the low vertebral count assign Pangio apoda to the oblonga species group of Kottelat & Lim (1993).

“WHILE recently making a zoological collection in the Sevoke River in the Teesta Valley at the base of the Darjiling Himalayas, I observed remarkable differences between the individuals of a Cobitid fish, Acanthophthalmus pangia (H. B.), collected from two diverse ‘niches’ in the same habitat. In Fig. 1 are shown the two types of individuals. The chief difference, which is readily noticeable in the two drawings, is that in the lower drawing the ventral fins are present, while in the upper these structures are totally absent. There are also other differences of a minor nature; for example, the extent of the nasal flap and the form of the caudal fin. Two specimens possessing ventral fins were obtained from among pebbles and shingle in a swift current, whereas 18 examples devoid of ventral fins were netted from among debris at the bottom of pools in the course of the stream.” –

These are actually two different species one Pangio apoda (Britz & Maclaine 2007) and the other Pangio pangia (Hamilton 1822).